## Facts

- Multiple adults and children lived in a shared residence in Kansas City, Kansas, including 5-year-old L.O. and her mother, S.O.
- Steven and Gloria Wilson (L.O.’s paternal uncle and aunt) moved into the home in late February 1997.
- L.O. suffered severe, ongoing abuse and neglect in the home, primarily by S.O., and was found malnourished, injured, and unable to stand.
- After receiving a report of abuse, SRS attempted to investigate in April 1997 but was initially refused entry.
- Gloria told SRS that L.O. was away visiting an aunt; the next day, after a warrant was obtained, authorities found L.O. hidden in the house in an extremely abused and neglected condition.
- Evidence indicated Steven and Gloria sometimes intervened during violent episodes, but L.O. remained in the home until the warrant execution.

## Issues

1. Whether K.S.A. 21-3608(a) (child endangerment) is unconstitutional as vague, overbroad, or beyond the State’s police power.
2. Whether “knowingly and unreasonably causing or permitting” child endangerment under K.S.A. 21-3608(a) applies to household adults who neither directly abuse the child nor have formal legal responsibility.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported Gloria Wilson’s conviction and Steven Wilson’s conviction.

## Decision

- The court held K.S.A. 21-3608(a) constitutional and within the State’s police power.
- The court construed “may be injured or endangered” to require a reasonable probability of harm, not a remote possibility.
- The court interpreted “permit” to require authority or control over the child or the abuser; mere presence or knowledge without such authority/control is insufficient.
- Gloria Wilson’s conviction was affirmed because her deception and concealment of L.O. from SRS unreasonably caused or permitted L.O. to remain in a life-threatening situation.
- Steven Wilson’s conviction was reversed because the State failed to prove he had sufficient authority or control over L.O. or the abuser to be criminally liable based on inaction.

## Legal Principles

- Child-endangerment prohibitions aimed at protecting children from serious harm are a valid exercise of state police power when reasonably directed to public welfare.
- A statute requiring proof of a reasonable probability of harm provides adequate notice and is not unconstitutionally vague on that basis.
- Under K.S.A. 21-3608(a), liability attaches if the defendant knowingly and unreasonably:
  - causes a child to be placed in a dangerous situation, or
  - permits the danger while having sufficient authority or control to prevent or mitigate it.
- Active obstruction that prolongs a child’s exposure to serious, probable harm can satisfy “causing or permitting” endangerment.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court sustained Kansas’s child-endangerment statute by construing it to require a reasonable probability of harm and by limiting omissions liability to defendants with authority or control; applying that framework, it affirmed Gloria Wilson’s conviction for concealment that prolonged danger to the child and reversed Steven Wilson’s conviction for lack of proof of such authority or control.


State v. Wilson, 267 Kan. 550, 987 P.2d 1060 (Kan. 1999)